You've argued it forcefully, but you haven't provided any evidence, so it's not a great argument.
For example, you made up a stat in your original post where you would find the percentage of RBI that a batter converts to an RBI. You hypothesized that it would correlate well with who you already think good hitters are. I imagine it WOULD correlate pretty well. Probably about as well as RBIs correlate, in fact.
But you know what would correlate even better? wRC+. And there's tons and tons of research that proves it. I'm guessing, based on the stance you're taking, that you don't understand wRC+, but I bet if you read about it, you'd like it a lot. The basic premise behind it is pretty similar to your RBI/chances stat, actually, it just uses events that are actually stable and predictive of future performance, unlike RBI.
If I'm sounding condescending, I'm really not trying to. I'm not suggesting that you aren't smart or can't understand wRC+, I'm just saying I don't think you've tried -- maybe because it isn't interesting to you or you already have negative feelings associated with other stats like it. I don't think you'd get snide remarks very often if you took the time to learn about the stats that you're railing against. Like, if you made an informed argument about why wRC+ ISN'T better than RBI or RBI/chances, in terms identifying the most productive hitting seasons, I don't think anyone would react negatively, even if he/she disagreed with your conclusion.
That's where the anti-vaxxer analogy came from. I used it because I assumed you WEREN'T an anti-vaxxer. As you know and have demonstrated, it makes all kinds of sense to vaccinate your child. For someone to believe he/she SHOULDN'T do so, that person would have to believe some things that aren't true about vaccines, which means that person would have to have not really done much research on the subject. The whole "but different sites can't even agree on a formula for WAR!" thing actually tracks pretty well with that. Lots of people hear that line, and decide simply to dismiss the whole concept without ever checking the veracity of the statement.
So I think the analogy works. It's not meant to call you ignorant, but it is meant to illustrate that ignorance is the result of choosing to be uninformed on a topic.